Count former New York Times writer Virginia Heffernan as one of the media feminists who wanted to hit Mitt Romney with a binder for about a week. From her digital macrame rug on Yahoo News, Heffernan wrote an entire column insisting "The remark did not accomplish what he’d hoped. In fact, it tipped the hand of Romney’s women panic so thoroughly that it’s likely his court-the-undecided-females’ game is now thrown."

"Plus, it misses the mark of normalcy so absolutely that he comes off as comical," she guessed. "No wonder it became a meme on Twitter and other social media sites. Just in case the humor seems opaque, let me offer a binder full of analysis."

First, his answer to a question about the grave subject of wage inequality flaunts his gender bias: In his anecdote, Romney ostentatiously refuses to consider qualified applicants just because theyre men.

Second, Romney in this instance was hiring for positions largely about optics: He wanted women in his cabinet so he could say he had women in his cabinet. He recruited women to be womennot cabinet members.

As if when Bill Clinton made a Cabinet designed to "look like America," it wasn't about optics? Would Heffernan argue that scandal figures like Janet Reno and Hazel O'Leary were the best America had to offer? Feminists think it's only about "optics" when the women aren't liberals or radical lefties. It continued:

Third, the binders response raises the specter of a still more hideous idea. Before answering the question, Romney had been reminded that women earn about 72 percent what their male counterparts doand his response was to say, Exactly! Thats why, given half a chance, I hire women! Bottom line, Romney recruits women because they look good and they come cheap.

The remark has done more than alienate women, for whom—as all recent data confirms—no one needs to do any special favors. For years, and to the despair of mothers of sons, females have been far more educated and better qualified than male applicants for almost anything. They also get jobs easily and don’t need someone searching high and low for binders of resumes. They just need to get paid fairly for what they do.

Lastly, Romney’s remark exposed something on flagrant display all night. It’s that he’s a boss—and only a boss. He sees everything from the throne of a massive realm: Massachusetts, Bain Capital, and the many businesses he’s “had the privilege of staffing,” or however he puts it.

Feminists never see a danger in arguing from a position of female supremacy, that women have been "far more educated and better qualified than male applicants for almost anything." If that's the case, why is she favoring Obama for president?

Real women are more concerned about the cost of groceries, paying bills and gasoline than they are about a binder remark. Only the women with vitriol hatred towards any Republican think about binders. This woman is completely delusional.

6
posted on 10/20/2012 2:05:30 PM PDT
by Bringbackthedraft
(Who we elect is not as important as who they bring in with them.)

Pitiful manufactured ideological rage says everything about the leftists who spin up with it and how their idea of reality has departed from earth at warp speed. Speaking of warped...

I took the Romney remark exactly as they were intended. As to “binders full of women”, if these same feminists are so concerned about gender equality, they would be hoping made over the skewed ratio of females to males in undergraduate-level courses. But their not and once again, it tells me all I need to know about what they really want.

“We’ve had four of our people killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi and the President lied and blamed it on a film. He also is trying to cover up that his administration failed to provide proper security.”

“No! No! No! You can’t run with that! Romney had a women’s group gather up qualified women’s resumes for Government positions and put them in a BINDER! (audible gasp) Big Bird may even be in there! And we
think Big Bird is male so that’s more gender discrimination!”

“Stop the presses!! Run with the Binder story! Maybe our stupid readers will read binders and think bondage!”

“But bondage here in NY will up Romney’s vote totals!”

“Just run with it!”

(A local commenter to our local liberal paper’s website actually tried to tie binders to bondage!)

He wanted women in his cabinet so he could say he had women in his cabinet.

There are a whole group of obamas cabinet members and tsars that should have been scraped off the sidewalk, put into little bags, and disposed of with the rest of the trash instead of being appointed to high level government positions.

Romeny did a great job of answering a stupid question. So, he said ‘women in binders’. Big deal. I saw a nice man talking about hiring women. Period.

The real story is that women make just as much as men when you compare apples to apples. A female engineer makes as much as a male engineer. etc etc etc etc. The problem is many men work as mechanics (for example) while many women choose to work in the office (for example). If a woman learned to be a mechanic she would make more and if a man worked in the office he would make less. Get it? It’s not a big ‘male’ conspiricay to hold dowm women which is always implied in these simple minded ‘gotcha’ questions. It’s simply the reality created by the choices both men and women make as they go about their lives.

Besides, instead of a question on a topic absolutely no one was discussing leading up to the debate, how aout one on Obama Care? Or, how about a question on Medicare reform? Or how about a question n tax reform? Instead we get this stupid ‘unequal pay crap’ from Crowley. I hate the meadi!!!!

I still haven't figured out why the word "binders" is supposed to be offensive. The only thing that I can think of is that they think if they pretend the word is offensive, a lot of brain-dead potential Obama voters will think it is offensive. In the phrase "binders of women" they could just as easily chosen the word "of" as being offensive.

If Romney wanted to look at resumes, it's bad if the resumes are in binders, but it would be OK if they were brought to him in cardboard or plastic containers, or in plastic expanding folders?

Janet Reno was Clinton's third choice for Attorney General--the first two had to drop out of consideration. All three proposed nominees were women. Obviously there were no Democratic male lawyers in the country who could have been considered capable of running the Justice Department.

This is quite simply the dumbest thing ever conceived. This is a whole new level of stupidity on the part of the 0bamanoids. And to see the parroting media pick it up is nothing if not indicative of how unthinking and banal they are.

So Romney is out of touch because he used binders, eh?

Guess what. It worked. Get it? It worked. Unlike anything 0bama has tried. He ended up with 50% women among his administrative positions and won some kind of award from some womens organization, not that that is any kind of big deal.

This is how out of touch he is. No, he’s not “cool”. But what he did worked. At the time he did this, digital pictures on a PC may well have been combersome sizewise, I don’t know. But if he got women jobs in his cabinet, WTF difference does it make if he used finger paintings?

"All the evidence suggests that the first debate made the difference. "In every poll we've seen a major surge in favorability for Romney," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today's Susan Page.

"Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney," she went on, "and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them." --Michael Barone, Townhall

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.